If you are a Londoner, you have probably seen the recent bus advertising campaign by Stonewall, the lesbian, gay and bisexual equality charity. It is pictured below:

As an ardent supporter of LGBT rights and equality, I welcome the simple fact that such a slogan can be emblazoned so publicly. For one, it shows how far gay rights have come in terms of acceptance and accessibility to resources. But secondly, it shows off Britain’s championing of freedom of speech, something which makes me very proud to live here, especially when you see the cost of withholding such a freedom in countries such as Russia (see my post ‘St. Petersburg: Don’t Go There‘), China and Syria.

The adverts are aimed at the opposition in the ongoing row over homosexual marriage, namely homophobics, and much more pointedly, religious homophobics. As such, a reposte has been designed by the Core Issues Trust who describe themselves as “a non-profit Christian initiative seeking to support men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression. It respects the rights of individuals who identify as gay who do not seek change.” Their advert looks like this:

The controversy arises because these adverts have been blocked from publication. This is controversial because it denies the other side of the debate the right to a reply which – whether you think they have a point or if you think they are a bunch of batshit crazy loons wasting their lives on totally unnecessary, unfounded and harmful pursuits – is a contravention of the freedom of speech I feel so proud to uphold.

Although there is obviously a line to be drawn between ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘inciting hatred’, I don’t think the CORE advert does that. If anything, the most fervent response is likely to be from people who oppose the message of the advert than neutrals converting to CORE’s philosophy or the already-converted strengthening their beliefs. Indeed, when I see things like this I boil inside with indignation at the unthinking and selfish prejudice behind such views. I don’t know if such a strong reaction is elicited from those sympathetic to these views themselves. ‘Inciting hatred’ is the stirring of people to rally round and act upon a cause based on (usually ill-informed and prejudiced) hatred of another type of person. Quite opposite to inciting hatred, it seems this advert is inviting hatred.

And then there is the issue of what the advert itself is promoting, namely therapies for people who wish to change their sexual orientation. Whether or not you agree with studies which suggest that sexual orientation for some (heterosexuals as well as homosexuals) can be changed (and it is possible that some people can change their orientation if they so wished – again, studies vary greatly) is somewhat irrelevant. The debate over whether or not such a change is possible misses the point entirely, the point being whether or not it is necessary. And the answer, to any compassionate and sensible thinking person, is no, it is absolutely not necessary. Most homosexuals undertaking Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) are highly religious which should tell you a lot. Most exist in an environment where the pressure to be straight is intense and are convinced that something which is completely harmless and natural is somehow a personal defect and a sinful act. It is the brainwashed brainwashing the brainwashed. Rather than promoting ‘cures’ for the benignity of homosexuality, humanity should grow up and promote cures for the malignant cancer of the social ostracization of homosexuals. The cure, unfortunately for the general good, is intelligence.

It is also particularly telling that CORE offers no therapies for people of a heterosexual persuasion who wish to become homosexual. I wonder if there was a demand for this whether they would provide such a service…

Anyway, this is teetering on the precipice of a full-blown, meandering rant, so I must rein it in. The reason I am torn in this issue is that although I fully support the message of the Stonewall campaign and fully reject the implications of the CORE one, I also fully support their right to voice this opinion, especially as the opposite side has been given this right already. Freedom of speech does not take sides, yet here we are denying one its freedom.

This echoes the furore over Nick Griffin’s participation in Question Time in 2009. Griffin is clearly a horrible human being. His views are horrendously misinformed and uncompassionate and his values of human worth are economical and not intrinsic. However, he heads a party which, at the time, had over a million people supporting it. Whatever his views, he represented a significant enough proportion of the British population to be afforded a voice. We would not be a Democracy if we denied this right. That he was hounded for a whole hour gave me a certain amount of satisfaction, but he should have been allowed more time to speak. I mean, what are we afraid of? That given this opportunity he will amass enough votes to take power? Trust me, if that day came, I would elope, possibly to a remote island where I wouldn’t have to live around such idiocy and hate. I would like to think that if he was allowed to spout his nonsense over the airwaves, most of the British people would rightly reject his policies and he might well in fact lose popularity. But while we bully those with unpopular views into silence, they will only use such injustice as a badge of honour to attract more attention and will fire double standards back at the right side of the debate. Let the good speak, and let stupidity speak for itself.

So, in short, I think these adverts should have been allowed to run. In 2008 a similar atheist bus campaign ran which looked like this:

And in similar fashion, a Christian response was formulated, but in this case, was allowed to run:

Again, I completely agree with the first and certainly disagree with the second, but why was this exchange allowed to run, but the latest one nipped in the bud? This debate could rage on and on, but fundamentally I would hope that people are smart enough to pick what is right in the long run, despite what the opposition wish to thrust upon them. True knowledge can not exist in a dictated society – it has to be informed by all sides and weeded out. So people should be exposed to falsehood, otherwise they are scarcely better off than the brainwashed.

This KONY 2012 thing has gone what internetophiles and YouTube types call ‘viral’ seemingly overnight. For those of you who have not yet seen what this is about, the link to the video is below. Just so you know, it is nearly 30 minutes long, but it is well worth watching:

I was at first encouraged at the fact that what is clearly a very important cause has gained such worldwide recognition. There is no question: what has been happening in Uganda, DRC, CAR and Sudan for two decades now is absolutely appalling and there can be no argument against someone – whomever you deem that to be – stepping in and doing something about Joseph Kony and the LRA.

I was also encouraged by the slightly more measured reaction to the video which considered possible downsides of the campaign and highlighted potentially dubious outcomes of supporting it. Such arguments can be found at the following link. These are also well worth reading:

I must first take issue with some of the points raised in this critique. Firstly, Chris Blattman’s point about the ‘White Man’s Burden’ is offensive and totally irrelevant: a worthy cause is a worthy cause is a worthy cause, no matter who is advocating it. Moreover, this movement has gained support from all over the world from people of all cultures, nationalities and races. Just because it was started by Americans, doesn’t mean it is just a bunch of empowered self-righteous philanthropic honkies. To rubbish the movement because of what he sees as a ‘saviour attitude’ is absurd and focuses on entirely the wrong side of the story, concentrating on the credibility of the activists rather than the plight of the victims. If children are being taken from their families and forced to kill, who cares who is trying to stop it happening? It is important only that someone is trying – no one has more or less legitimacy to do so. To claim the opposite is downright idiocy.

Secondly, I would dismiss the criticism that Invisible Children (IC) has spent a lot of money on film-making. The film clearly has extremely high production value, but I’m convinced that this quality has directly led to a far greater following. No amount of money can be deemed too much when the lives of so many thousands of kids are at stake, and if they had to blow some on an expensive, professional video to make their point, that’s fine with me because the undoubted added exposure will yeild much, much better results in terms of action taken.

However, there are some good questions asked. The ‘KONY 2012’ campaign is so professional, slick and convincing that it is easy to see how such a well-oiled media machine has gathered so much pace and notoriety. However, it is so emotive that many people don’t even think about whether the people to whom their few notes a month go might not themselves be so spotless. If the allegations in the article by Grant Oyston are true – firstly that the Ugandan army (UPDF) have themselves committed numerous rapes and lootings, secondly that IC have defended them and thirdly that some of the donation money goes toward funding the UPDF – then you have to question whether your dollars, pounds, yen or euros are going to the right place. There is also a very interesting point raised regarding IC’s support of a military intervention approach. This would not be so much of an issue in normal circumstances, but the huge spanner in the works here is that most of Kony’s bodyguards are the very children that the cause is trying to save. Such a militant mission would undoubtedly result in the deaths of some of these children, which is the opposite of what is trying to be achieved. IC has already responded to most of these criticisms which you can read here:

They strongly deny that they have defended the UPDF’s human rights abuses or that the Ugandan government sees any of their money, and they have reiterated the transparency of their finances which is all great. They don’t really address the military approach issue though, so it is still something to think about. Also, posing for a photo with guns was pretty silly and their explanation that it was a ‘joke’ wasn’t as convincing as their film-making. But still, their rationale and certainly their intentions seem sound from most of these rebuttals.

Although I am happy to see something important take center stage on Facebook et al., I also wish to condemn those outskirt-dwelling snide web-surfing snipers who contribute nothing to the topic except unhelpful sarcastic comments and ‘hilarious’ memes (memes???? I’m becoming one of them!!!!!). If their aim is to expose perceived ‘slacktivism’ (the act of raising awareness of causes solely through free and minimal-effort methods, such as liking, sharing and status updates on social networking sites which does very little to affect any actual change but leaves the slactivist with a sense of self-gratification and smugness), then my aim is to expose the fact that their ‘reaction-to-a-reaction’ is an utter waste of time and no different to that which they are attacking – call it ‘la-zeal’. My friend Alistair Bremnath put it well: ‘Slacktivism’ is better than ‘DoingFuckAlltivism’. Surely their ill-informed knee-jerk reaction to the sudden support for KONY 2012 is no different to the ill-informed knee-jerk reaction of those supporting it, except that the former camp is achieving nothing while the latter might actually contribute toward something good. If the slacktivists are on their high horses, then the la-zealots are just lying down on the floor. The answer is to walk sensibly between them.

I do get where this negative reaction comes from. It is kind of annoying to see people whose status yesterday was ‘dnt b talkin shit at me if u dnt no wot ur talkin bout get a fukin life fuk sake’ or ‘OMG just saw Joey Essex in Tescos’ suddenly become human rights activists. There’s an irritating insincerity about it. But still, if you’re going to insincerely spread the word about something, better it be something like this.

The final sentiment of Grant Oyston’s critique rang very true however: this is about Joseph Kony, not KONY 2012. You do not have to give money to IC in order to create awareness or pressurise governments into action. Their posters are not exclusive, copyrighted official merchandise – you can make your own. And, as IC themselves point out, word of mouth is free. If you do wish to contribute to IC however, then I see no problem with it. Just make sure you’ve read all the info first and aren’t just reacting like Pavlov’s Dog. That goes for the nay-sayers as well.